International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.4.2.30
Estimation of Soil Erosion and Net Sediment
Trapped of Upper-Helmand Catchment in
Kajaki Reservoir Using USLE Model and
Remote Sensing & GIS Technique
Khan Mohammad Takal1, S.K. Mittal2, Jyoti Sarup3
1
M.Tech (WRE) Student Department of Civil Engineering, MANIT
2
Ex. Professor of MANIT, Department of Civil Engineering and Professor at LNCT
3
Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering, MANIT, Bhopal
Abstract Soil erosion is a serious problem and greatest
destroyer to land cover management and resources of the
Upper-Helmand river basin catchment. The Upper-
Helmand river basin catchment covers an area of 46,793
square kilometers. In the present study, Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE) model with Remote Sensing and
Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques have
been used to estimate soil erosion risks and sediment
yield at the Upper-Helmand catchment outlet (Kajki
reservoir). Potential soil erosion and magnitude are
determined in the catchment. Using USLE model, soil
erosion map has been prepared and presented, which will
be helpful for conservational and management practices
to reduce soil erosion and its yield into the reservoir. It is
also found that the average soil erosion from the
catchment is 6.22ton/ha/year and corresponding sediment
yield trapped at the Kajaki reservoir.
KeywordsUpper-Helmand, Kajaki, USLE, Sediment
Yield, Remote Sensing (RS), GIS.
I. INTRODUCTION
An important item for consideration in the planning and
management work of catchment is the soil erosion. It not
only reduces the storage capacity of a reservoir but also
affects the resources and productivity of catchment.
Erosion implicates the process of the detachment,
transport and deposition of soil particles and aggregates
(Kumar et al., 2015). The total amount of detachment
(erosion) of soil and then transportation from its source to
downstream control point of the catchment is defined as
the sediment yield (Gottschalk, 1964). Therefore,
sediment yield rate is the result of soil loss and surface
runoff and channel flow. Sediment yield rate basically
depends on surface runoff. Therefore, any errors in the
prediction of runoff affect the sediment yield. Worldwide,
around more than 80% agriculture land and 50%
pastureland are suffering from the effect of soil erosion
www.ijaers.com
[Vol-4, Issue-2, Feb- 2017]
ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)
(Pimentel et al. 1995). Dudal (1981) has reported that,
globally, fertile land of 60 Mha/year is losing because of
soil erosion. Totally degraded land at this rate has been
already estimated about 1964.4 Mha of total land (UNEP
1997). Of which, 1903 Mha is degraded due to water, 8.3
Mha is due to wind effect. To predict soil erosion, most of
the researchers have faced with problem of use a suitable
model for a given watershed (Meijerink and Lieshout
1996). Hence, adaptation of an appropriate model is
always a very important decision for the application of
critical condition of an area (Chisci and Morgan 1988).
Some models have performed well and give good results
for a specific area and may not perform well in other
areas. Therefore, selection of proper model is very
important (Shrestha 2000). Hence, suitable and proper
model is the first step for soil erosion modeling.
The original and modified forms of the USLE, is widely
used model to assess soil loss from a catchment area (Rao
et al, 1994). USLE model has involved number of
parameters such as rainfall erosivity factor (R), erodibility
factor (K), topographic parameters (LS), vegetative cover
(C) and soil conservation practice factor (P). In the
present study, Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is
being used to assess potential soil erosion from Upper-
Helmand catchment and its impact on Kajaki reservoir.
Arc-GIS 10.3 software is being used for the generation
and development of input digital data for the USLE
model to estimate the soil erosion form the catchment and
generation of output maps.
II. STUDY AREA
Upper-Helmand catchment is located between longitude
65.092 E to 68.687 E and latitudes 32.254 N to
34.653 N with an area of 46,793 Km2 (Fig. 1).
Catchment area is ranging in height between 968 m to
5036 from MSL (Mean Sea Level). The basin area is
embodied largely by hills, buried pediments, valleys and
Page | 150
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.4.2.30
alluvial plains. The soil textures is silty clay, sandy,
loamy and alluvium. The upper-Helmand river basin
originated in a westerly extension of the Hindu Kush
mountain range near Paghman about 40 kilometers west
of Kabul and runs southwesterly for about 590 kilometers
to the reservoir of Kajaki Dam. The river water runoff
comes mostly from rainfall at the average elevations of
the basin in winter and spring season and from snow
melting from the glaciers of at the high altitude of
mountains which escalate to elevations of 5036m. Range
of Annual precipitations varies between 100mm to
670mm and precipitate mostly at higher altitudes during
winter and spring season. The Mountains cause many
local variations the rainfall erosivity factor (R), soil
erodibility factor (K), topographic factor (LS), vegetative
cover factor (C) and soil conservation practice factor (P).
The upper-Helmand river basin is categorized by a dry
continental climate. The temperatures of this region is
varying from minus (-) 10 C in winter to plus (+) 34 C
in summer. The fluctuations in temperature are not
uniform in character all over the whole basin.
The catchment is very important in the context of serving
inter-sectorial demands including drinking, irrigation and
hydropower generation. There is one major reservoir in
the drainage basin with gross storage capacity of 1,844
Mm3 at the existing un-gated spillway crest elevation
(Perkins, & Culbertson, 1970).
Fig.1 Upper-Helmand Catchment Location Map
III. DATA ACQUISITION
Landsat TM mosaic imagery is downloaded from
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Soil map, soil properties
such as soil types, its structure and texture are obtained
from the United Nation Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) soil map. DEM (Digital Elevation
model) is derived from ASTER (Advanced Space borne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) and
downloaded from http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ while 35
years rainfall data is downloaded from global weather.
www.ijaers.com
[Vol-4, Issue-2, Feb- 2017]
ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)
IV. METHODOLOGY
Several models have been developed for the soil loss
erosion over the past 50 years such as, Soil and Water
Assessment Tools (SWAT), Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE), Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Model
(AGNPS), Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) and
Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in Europe (SERAE), etc.
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was developed
during 1930 by United State Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and widely used for the assessment of soil loss
from the catchment in USA. This model predict the
average annual soil loss (A), which is the result of five
different factors that influence the soil loss and is given
below Equation (1) :
A = R K LS C P (1)
Where A is annual average soil loss (ton/ha/year), R is
rainfall erosivity factor (MJ/ha.mm/h), K is soil
erodibility factor (MJ mm/ha/ h/ y), L is the slope length
factor, S is the slope steepness factor, C is the cover
management factor and P is conservation practice factor.
IV.I CALCULATION OF USLE FACTORS
IV.I.I RAINFALL EROSIVITY FACTOR (R)
The rainfall erosivity factor (R) is obtained from the
rainfall intensity data. Equation for the erosivity factor
from rainfall kinetic energy and rainfall intensity was
introduced by Wischmeier & Smith in 1978 and is given
by Equation (2):
R = k Ec I30 (2)
Where Ec is the kinetic energies, I30 is the average
intensity based on 30 minutes of rain drops of each
shower and k is a coefficient that depends on the system
of units of measurement. In most of the cases the rainfall
intensity is not available. Therefore, erosivity factor is
determined from the daily rainfall data (Jain et al, 2001).
In the Upper-Helmand watershed the rain gauge stations
do not have rainfall intensity data. Hence, R is found from
mean annual rainfall (P) (Morgan and Davidson, 1991)
and is given below by Equation (3):
R = 0.5 * P (3)
The annual and monthly precipitation data are
downloaded from http://globalweather.tamu.edu/ which
covers 42 stations for 35 years. R values are estimated
and interpolated over the whole watershed using
geostrategic model (Kriging). The R values are varying
from 82 to 362 and are shown in Fig.2.
Page | 151
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) [Vol-4, Issue-2, Feb- 2017]
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.4.2.30 ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)
fcl-si is a factor of soil which has high clay to silt ratio and
gives low soil erodibility as obtained from Eq.(6).

(6)

forg is a factor of soil which has organic carbon content

and reduce the erodibility of soil and is given by Eq (7).

(7)

fhisand is a factor of soil which has high content of sand and

reduce the erodibility of soil and is given by Eq(8).

(8)
Fig.2: R-Factor Map Upper-Helmand Catchment

IV.I.II SOIL ERODIBILITY FACTOR (K)

In Equation (5) to Equation (8) ms, msilt, mc and orcC are
The estimation of soil eordibility factor (K) is based on
the percentage of sand, silt, clay and organic content of
physical properties of soil (texture and organic matter
top soil respectively. The above factors are calculated in
content) (Sharpley & Williams, 1990), and is given in
Table.1 from the soil texture of Upper-Helmand
below Equation (4).
catchment based on FAO soil classification. Accordingly,
K = fcsand x fcl-si x forg x fhisand x 0.1317 (4)
the soil erodibilty factor K is calculated using equation (4)
Where fcsand is a factor of soil which has high coarse sand
and is given in Table.1 and also shown in Fig.3 for
and gives low soil erodibility through Eq.(5).
Upper-Helmand river basin.

(5)

Table.1: Soil texture of Upper-Helmand catchment bass on FAO Soil Classification.

Soil unit sand % silt % clay % OC %
Fcsand F cl-si Forg Fhisand KUSLE K
symbol topsoil topsoil topsoil topsoil
I 58.9 16.2 24.9 0.97 0.200 0.756 0.925 0.994 0.139 0.0183
JC 39.6 39.9 20.6 0.65 0.201 0.883 0.975 1.000 0.173 0.0227

Fig.3 K-Factor Map of Upper-Helmand Watershed

IV.I.III TOPOGRAPHIC FACTOR (LS) and was used to calculate topographic factor (LS). LS is
A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) (Fig.4) of 30m factor combining the product of L and S factors. L factor
resolution images, prepared from Advanced Space-borne has computed for each pixel of the gridding Eq.9, (Demet
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER), and Govers 1996).

www.ijaers.com Page | 152

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) [Vol-4, Issue-2, Feb- 2017]
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.4.2.30 ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)

(9)

Where Lij-in is slope length for grid cell (i,j), Aij-in is

contributing area at the inlet of the grid cell with
coordinates (i,j) (m2), D is grid cell size in meter, m is
length exponent of the USLE L-factor, xij is equal to
(sini,j + cosi,j). The (m) exponent in Eq.9 was used
according to the algorithm proposed of McCool et al
(1989).

Where, the slope length is function of the erosion ratio of

rill to interrill ().
Fig.5 LS-Factor Map of Upper-Helmand Catchment
(10)
IV.I.VI COVER MANAGEMENT FACTOR (Cm)
For cover management factor, imagery is extracted from
Where varies according to slope gradient (McCool et
Landsat TM and was used to find out the C m-factor values
al.,1989). The value is obtained by:
bass on LULC and is shown in Fig.6, which clearly shows
that the major portions of catchment consist of C m value
(11)
equal to 0.4.
The slope steepness factor is derived using the following
equation (Eq.12a and Eq. 12b) as proposed by (McCool et
at., 1987) for slope length >4m.
S = 10.8 sin + 0.03 (for slope gradient < 9%) (12a)
S = 16.8 sin + 0.5 (for slope gradient 9%) (12b)
Where S is dimensionless slope steepness factor and is
slope angle in degree. The variation of LS factor is shown
in Fig.5.

Fig.6 Cm-Factor Map of Upper-Helmand Catchment

IV.I.V CONSERVATION PARCTICE FACTOR

In the catchment there is no erosion control practices,
hence the P-factor value is 1 in USLE model.

V. ESTIMATION OF SOIL EROSION USING

USLE
The rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, topographic and
Fig.4 DEM Map of Upper-Helmand Catchment
crop management factors used in USLE model can be
considered as naturally measureable factors determining
the sheet and rill erosion processes. Arc-GIS 10.3 has
been used to estimate the soil erosion from the Upper-
Helmand river basin. Soil erosion from catchment is the
results of multiplication of the factors R, K, LS, C, and P.
This calculation has been carried out in raster calculation

www.ijaers.com Page | 153

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) [Vol-4, Issue-2, Feb- 2017]
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.4.2.30 ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)
in Map Algebra of Spatial Analyst Tools, which is a
powerful function in Arc-GIS.

Fig.7 Sediment traps efficiency as per Brune (1953)

Fig.6 Soil Erosion Map of Upper-Helmand Watershed
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The soil erosion rates, as derived from the raster
Soil erosion value in raster map varies between 0 and
multiplication of the USLE factors are shown in Fig.6,
31.98ton/ha/year as shown in Fig.6. Accordingly, soil
which vary from 0 to 31.98 ton/year. These erosion rates
erosion classification is given in Table.2.
have classified into three classes, slight, moderate and
high soil erosion and are given in Table 2. It can be
Table.2: Soil Erosion Classification
observed that, soil erosion risk is low in 80.92% of the
Range Land Area Cover
Erosion study area with a soil loss of 4.66tons/ha/year, while
(tons/ha/ Use Cover Area
Class 17.59% of the area is under moderate erosion with soil
year) Class Km2 %
loss of 15.31 tons/year. Hardly 1.49% of the area is under
1 0-10 Slight 37865.9 80.92
high erosion with soil loss of 26.62ton/ha/year. The
2 10-20 Moderate 8,229.7 17.59
average quantity of actual soil loss over the whole
3 20-31.98 High 697.7 1.49
watershed as estimated by USLE model is
6.22ton/ha/year. Accordingly, the total soil erosion
estimated by USLE model was estimated is 29.1
V.I SEDIMENT YIELD DETERMINATION Mton/year over the whole basin. After dividing by the
The sediment yield equation is expressed as follows:
specific gravity of the sediment (1.5tons/m3) the soil
Y = SDR * Ag (13)
erosion from the Upper-Helmand catchment will be 19.4
Where, Y is sediment yield at catchment outlet, SDR is
Mm3/year.
sediment delivery ratio and Ag is gross soil erosion from
the catchment.
VI.I SEDIMENTATION YIELD OF KAJAKI
Williams and Berndt (1972), related SDR with slope of
RESERVIOR
main channel (SLP) and the corresponding relation is
The gross erosion from the catchment is estimated, as
expressed as follow.
19.4 Mm3/year and the sediment delivery ratio for the
SDR = 0.627 * SLP0.403 (14)
watershed is 54%, therefore, the net sediment yields of
Eq.14 gives reasonable good value for the determination
Kajki reservoir will be 10.47 Mm3/year. The average trap
of sediment delivery ratio despite using few parameters of
efficiency of the reservoir is 0.87. This result in the net
catchment (Williams and Berndt 1972). The estimation
sediment trapped in the reservoir 8.92 Mm3/year. The
of SLP required only two parameters of the catchment the
reservoir storage capacity at the crest of spillway was
length of channel and elevation of channel.
1,844Mm3 in 1953 (Perkins, & Culbertson, 1970). At the
V.II SEDIMENT TRAP EFFICIENCY same spillway elevation 1,033.5m the total storage
For the determination of sediment trap efficiency, the
capacity at present is 1,282 Mm3. Thus, the total
Brunes Curve (1953) has been used, which is a common
reduction in reservoir during last 63 years will be 562
and popular method. Brune collected the data from 44
Mm3, which results in average reduction in storage
normal pounded reservoirs in USA and developed an
capacity as 8.92 Mm3/year.
envelope curve-trap versus capacity inflow ratio (C/I)
Fig.7 and then drawn a median curve, which can be used
for the determination of trap efficiency (trap).

www.ijaers.com Page | 154

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) [Vol-4, Issue-2, Feb- 2017]
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.4.2.30 ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)

Abbreviation of Table.3: A = Average Soil Loss

R = Rainfall Erosivity Factor C = Reservoir Capacity
K = Soil Erodibility Factor I = Annual Inflows
LS = Topographic Factor C/I = Reservoir Capacity Inflow Ratio
CmP = Crop Management and Soil Conservation Practice Te = Trap Efficiency
Factor SDR = Sediment Delivery Ratio
NS = Net Sediment

Table.3 Soil Erosion and Sediment yield from Upper-Helmand Catchment of 35 years
A
Rainf A C NS NS
ton/ 6 I (C/ SD
Year all R K LS CmP x 10 106 6 3 Te ton m3
ha/y 10 m I) R
(mm) ton m3 x106 x106
r
1979 371.14 185.57 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.37 29.80 1844 16926.3 0.16 0.87 0.54 14.65 9.33
1980 391.47 195.74 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.72 31.44 1844 17757.2 0.15 0.86 0.54 15.28 9.73
1981 326.90 163.45 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.61 26.25 1844 14797.1 0.20 0.88 0.54 13.18 8.32
1982 640.02 320.01 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 10.98 51.40 1844 29710.0 0.08 0.80 0.54 23.59 14.80
1983 435.77 217.89 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 7.48 34.99 1844 19071.4 0.14 0.88 0.54 16.63 11.09
1984 388.05 194.02 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.66 31.16 1844 17779.6 0.15 0.87 0.54 15.14 9.76
1985 256.67 128.33 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 4.40 20.61 1844 11475.9 0.28 0.90 0.54 10.46 6.68
1986 417.26 208.63 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 7.16 33.51 1844 18651.0 0.14 0.87 0.54 15.74 10.49
1987 313.74 156.87 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.38 25.19 1844 14459.5 0.20 0.90 0.54 12.52 8.16
1988 347.23 173.62 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.96 27.88 1844 15716.2 0.18 0.87 0.54 13.70 8.73
1989 395.61 197.81 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.79 31.77 1844 19016.2 0.14 0.87 0.54 15.10 9.95
1990 426.92 213.46 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 7.33 34.28 1844 19492.5 0.13 0.86 0.54 16.29 10.61
1991 636.68 318.34 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 10.93 51.13 1844 28830.3 0.08 0.80 0.54 23.47 14.72
1992 514.39 257.19 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 8.83 41.31 1844 24018.6 0.10 0.83 0.54 19.41 12.34
1993 310.25 155.13 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.32 24.91 1844 14413.4 0.20 0.88 0.54 12.65 7.89
1994 329.71 164.86 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.66 26.48 1844 30022.4 0.08 0.80 0.54 12.15 7.63
1995 336.23 168.11 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.77 27.00 1844 15354.2 0.19 0.88 0.54 13.27 8.55
1996 314.76 157.38 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.40 25.28 1844 13506.8 0.22 0.90 0.54 12.69 8.19
1997 408.75 204.37 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 7.01 32.82 1844 19210.9 0.14 0.86 0.54 15.42 10.16
1998 357.44 178.72 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.13 28.70 1844 15845.8 0.18 0.87 0.54 13.95 8.99
1999 201.87 100.94 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 3.46 16.21 1844 8805.6 0.41 0.92 0.54 8.40 5.37
2000 144.10 72.05 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 2.47 11.57 1844 5655.2 0.84 0.95 0.54 6.06 3.96
2001 93.66 46.83 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 1.61 7.52 1844 3640.0 1.88 0.95 0.54 3.98 2.57
2002 217.04 108.52 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 3.72 17.43 1844 9924.8 0.35 0.93 0.54 9.03 5.84
2003 245.03 122.51 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 4.20 19.68 1844 11152.5 0.29 0.91 0.54 9.99 6.45
2004 254.13 127.07 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 4.36 20.41 1844 11063.3 0.29 0.91 0.54 10.36 6.69
2005 371.66 185.83 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.38 29.85 1844 15963.7 0.18 0.88 0.54 14.67 9.46
2006 359.78 179.89 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.17 28.89 1844 16434.5 0.17 0.88 0.54 14.20 9.15
2007 357.64 178.82 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.14 28.72 1844 16516.3 0.17 0.88 0.54 14.11 9.10
2008 291.61 145.81 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.00 23.42 1844 12437.4 0.25 0.91 0.54 11.89 7.67
2009 417.32 208.66 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 7.16 33.51 1844 19701.3 0.13 0.84 0.54 15.74 10.13
2010 343.64 171.82 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 5.90 27.60 1844 15394.0 0.18 0.88 0.54 13.56 8.74
2011 435.03 217.52 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 7.47 34.93 1844 18601.0 0.14 0.84 0.54 16.41 10.56
2012 488.98 244.49 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 8.39 39.27 1844 20592.6 0.13 0.50 0.54 18.66 7.07
2013 370.97 185.49 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 6.37 29.79 1844 15719.7 0.18 0.88 0.54 14.64 9.44
2014 532.05 266.02 0.0205 4.32 0.3872 9.13 42.72 1844 20037.2 0.13 0.84 0.54 20.07 12.92

www.ijaers.com Page | 155

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.4.2.30
VII. CONCLUSION
In the present study, USLE model and GIS environment
has been used to estimate soil erosion. For the generation
of various maps under USLE model, the use of GIS
platform is a faster and better method for spatial
modeling. The USLE model has been accepted broadly
all over the world to speculate the soil erosion from a
catchment. For generation of USLE factors, remote
sensing data was used to generate land use/land cover,
soil and topographic data, which are pre-requisite for the
model factors. The quantity of average annual soil erosion
was estimated by USLE model, as 19.4 Mm3/year and the
sediment trapped in the Kajaki reservoir is as 8.92
Mm3/year. The validation of USLE model results was
carried out with the sedimentation survey (Whitney J W,
2006) which is completed in 2005 for last 53 years from
1952 to 2005. The average annual sedimentation yield in
Kajaki reservoir was estimated, as 9.132 Mm3/year.
Therefore, the present study result shows a good and
comparable value.
REFERENCES
[1] Ashish Pandey., Chowdary, V.M. and Mal, B.C.,
(2007). Identification of critical erosion prone areas
in the small agricultural watershed using USLE, GIS
and remote sensing, Water Resour Manage, 21, pp.
729746.
[2] Brune, G.M. (1953). Trap Efficiency of Reservoirs,
Trans. Am. Geophysical Union, 34 (3),407-418.
[3] Chisci, G., and Morgan, R.P.C., (1988). Modeling
soil erosion by water: Why and how, In: Morgan
RPC, Rickson RJ (eds) Erosion assessment and
modeling, Commission of the European
communitys report no. EUR 10860 EN, pp. 121
146.
[4] Desmet, P. J.. J., & Govers, G. (1996). A GIS-
procedure for automatically calculating the USLE
LS-factor on topographically complex landscape
units. J. Soil Water Cons., 51(5), 427-433.
[5] Dudal R (1981). An evaluation of conservation
needs. In: Morgan RPC, Soil conservation: problems
and prospects. Wiley, New York.
[6] Gottschalk, L.C. (1964). Reservoir Sedimentation
Chapter 17-1. In: V.T. Chow, d., Handbook of
Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
NewYork, NY. USA
[7] Jain, S.K., Kumar, S. and Varghese, J., 2001.
Estimation of soil erosion for a Himalayan
watershed using GIS technique. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Water Resources Management 15,
pp.4154.
www.ijaers.com
[Vol-4, Issue-2, Feb- 2017]
ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O)
[8] Jain, S.K., (1994). Integration of GIS and remote
sensing in soil erosion studies, Report No. CS(AR)-
186, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee,
India.
[9] Kumar, et al. (2015). Simulation of Sediment Yield
over Un-gauged Stations Using Musle (Case Study
Meghadrigedda Reservoir), International Journal of
Earth Science and Engineering, ISSN 0974-5904,
Volume 08, No. 02
[10] McCool, D. K., Foster, G. R., Mutchler, C. K., &
Meyer, L. D. (1989). Revised slope length factor for
the universal soil loss equation. Trans. ASAE, 32(5),
1571-1576.
[11] Meijerink, A.M.J., and Lieshout, A.M.V., (1996).
Comparison of approaches for erosion modeling
using flow accumulation with GIS. HydroGIS
235,pp. 437-444.
[12] Morgan, R. P. C., and Davidson, D. A., (1991). Soil
Erosion and Conservation, Longman Group, U.K.
[13] Perkins et al. (1970) Hydrographic and
sedimentation survey of Kajakai Reservoir,
Afghanistan: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1608M, 43 p.
[14] Pimentel et al. (1995). Environmental and Economic
Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits.
Science, 267(5201):1117-23.
[15] Rao, V.V., Chakravarty, A.K., and Sharma. U.,
(1994).Watershed prioritization based on sediment
yield modeling and IRS-1A LISS data, Asian-pacific
Remote Sensing Journal, 6(2), pp. 59-65.
[16] Sharpley, A.N., Williams, J.R, eds. (1990). EPIC-
Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: Z 1. Model
Documentation. US. Dep. Aric. Tech. Bull. No.
1768.
[17] Shrestha, D.P., (2000). Aspects of erosion and
sedimentation in the Nepalese Himalaya: Highland-
Lowland relations. PhD thesis, Ghent University,
Ghent.
[18] UNEP (1997). World Atlas of desertification, 2nd,
edn. Arnold, London, p 77.
[19] Williams, J. R. and Berndt, H. D., (1972). Sediment
yield computed with Universal equation, J. Hydraul.
Div. ASCE 98(HY2), 20872098.7.
[20] Whitney, J.W., 2006, Geology, water, and wind in
the lower Helmand Basin, southern Afghanistan:
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 20065182, 40 p.
[21] Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978). Predicting
rainfall erosion losses. USDA Agricultural Research
Services Handbook 537. USDA, Washington, p 57.
Page | 156